Fine with me!
This has pretty much bothered me since I first read the 5th edition. I thought I was the only one.
2 Likes
I would like to point out that requiring everything to Penetrate the Aegis would result in a massive increase in the power of the Aegis vs internal targets. The "penalty" to casting totals for example would be effectively be doubled plus 11. For those wondering about the plus 11, spells could no be cast with a CT of -10 and defenders win ties. Whether this is desirable I leave up to the group.
I would argue in favor of not overwriting the special rules for the Heartbeast interacting with the Aegis. Since they are based on the Heartbeast being part of its users true nature, a Magus should be able to use it with some difficulty rather than the almost impossibility that a half Aegis penalty or penetrating the Aegis would result in.
Personally in favor of passive sensory powers (Second Sight, Sense Holiness and Unholiness) being unaffected by the Aegis or up to Saga choice.
As for fizzling out the Familiar Cords, I would rather the Cords themselves be unaffected and the Aegis work on any bond powers enchanted into them. Much the same I would rather the Aegis not affect an active LR. If it could, there would suddenly be a means to "assassinate" any elder Magus visiting a Covenant (during winter) by revoking their invitation.
Skinchanger is something that has also always bothered me.
1 Like
Unsurprisingly, I would be vastly in favour of this.
It's simple, consistent, and robust.
And thus significantly better than the current version, in terms of both playability and aesthetics.
It is.
I'm not convinced about this, though I am open to arguments.
Please do not assume that everyone (or indeed anyone) agrees with your sense of aesthetics. Please also understand that making an absolute argument based on aesthetics is a pretty surefire way to cause me to write you off as an irrelevant barbarian who barely understands the concept of communication.
I don't want to have this opinion of anyone on this board - making a statement like the above is one of the few ways to actually annoy me in a meaningful way. I find it significantly personally offensive.
Your sense of aesthetics. Not mine. Do not assume.
Complex and potentially inconsistent rules tend to
a) slow down play, as the troupe figures out "can this be done"?
b) create situations where one player imagines the "world's laws" work one way, has a character act appropriately, only to discover at a later time that according to the SG they do not. "Well then I would not have..." arguments follow.
c) leave open abusable loopholes.
Hence, better playability without them.
They also tend to:
d) create unforeseen situations where the rules - that are supposed to create a model of reality to support narrative - lead to "weird" outcomes that do not match setting expectations. Incidentally, this last point is part of why I think they lead to better aesthetics.
More in general, I believe I could present ample evidence (but I am too lazy to do so) that in most science and engineering, including mechanism engineering (such as rpg rule design) simplicity, consistency and robustness are considered objective aesthetic merits, even though the specific evaluation of whether something is simple, consistent and/or robust has inevitably some elements of subjectivity.
Fair enough. Pleaase do assume that whenever I am evaluating something in terms of something you consider necessarily subjective, I am for brevity implicitly stating "in my view, with which you are free to disagree". E.g. if I say "You are on a short fuse" I mean "in my view, with which you are free do disagree, you are on a short fuse".
So if a member of the covenant creates a lamp without flame enchanted lighting device, and then relocates to another covenant, does the enchantment fail because it no longer penetrates? Alternately if the covenant buys such a lamp and it fails to penetrate does it work? Thirdly to balance the first two points, if someone smuggles an enchanted item that sets building on fire whenever another spell is cast nearby, does it fail because it needed to penetrate. I think setting up rules that cover what is desired in all three of these cases is going to require a somewhat more sophisticated description.
I think the precedent for enchanted devices is that they are suppressed if created outside the aegis, until the next aegis is cast, at which point they are native. I don't see that changing? Or did I miss something?
3 Likes
I saw a lack of clarity, where the effectiveness of an enchanted item might be tied to it's enchanter rather than its current location.
Simply saying "well that's how it works because that's how it has always worked and we all know that" doesn't help when someone new is reading the rules.
1 Like
I do agree that this part ("what makes a device native?") deserves some thought too. In fact, I wish devices could be treated uniformly with creatures in this regard - becoming native if involved in the casting of the AotH (e.g. being named at the time) or if "invited": The "smuggled device that becomes native at the first AotH recasting" that you mentioned is otherwise, in my view, a source of problems.
That said, hopefully this part is independent of the part "what happens to non-natives?" (which sees enough controversy already) and can be settled separately, after the other is settled.
This will surely fall back to something like ArM5 p.161:
Effects from enchanted devices are resisted by the Aegis unless the item was within the Aegis at the time of casting (scilicet: of the Aegis), or was created within the Aegis by someone who was part of the ritual or in possession of a token.
I'd like to look at a fully concrete specification of an alternative for Aegis, so that people can comment on what goes wrong with this. Note that this is a significant change, so comments on where this will cause problems for things published already in ArM5 are also welcome. If there are too many, I will abandon this and go back to something more similar to the current version.
The level of the Aegis (excluding any magnitudes for size) serves as Magic Resistance against all supernatural effects, of any realm, generated by anyone who is not native of the Aegis, as defined later.
An effect that would, in the absence of the Aegis, have an effect within the area of the Aegis, must Penetrate the Aegis in order to take effect. This includes effects that are not normally resisted, and applies whether the effect is generated within or outside the Aegis.
Creatures with Might and existing supernatural effects must Penetrate the Aegis in order to enter it, with Might + Penetration. If they fail to Penetrate, they cannot enter. A creature or object without Might that bears a supernatural effect cannot enter the Aegis if the effect fails to Penetrate.
A creature that finds itself within the Aegis (because, for example, the Aegis was cast while it was there, or because it was invited in and had the invitation revoked), and unable to Penetrate it, can do nothing except leave the area of the Aegis, as quickly as possible, causing as little damage as possible. A creature that is unable to leave (because, for example, it is within a ward) becomes dormant, unconscious and unable to act.
An active effect that finds itself within the Aegis, and is unable to Penetrate it, is suppressed until the bearer of the effect leaves the area of the Aegis.
Because the Aegis of the Hearth is a form of Magic Resistance, it does not need to Penetrate to affect creatures. In this, it is importantly different from Wards.
Some effects, such as the ability of a Skinchanger to change shape, have no Penetration. They are unable to Penetrate the Aegis, and thus cannot be used within it. This includes the ability of a Bjornaer to change between human form and their Heartbeast, but as both shapes are natural to the magus, they may enter and leave any Aegis in either form.
Longevity Rituals and familiar bonds are magical effects without Penetration. A magus with either (or both) may not enter a foreign Aegis without invitation.
Natives of the Aegis include the following groups.
All magi who participated in the casting ritual for the Aegis of the Hearth. Participating magi include the maga who is actually casting the spell, any magus participating through Wizard's Vigil, and any character with opened Hermetic Arts who participates with the permission of one of those magi. (The terms "magus" and "magi" hereinafter include, without limitation, magae and any apprentice, of any sex, gender, or species, providing that the individual in question has been successfully opened to the Hermetic Arts and still retains The Gift and access to the Hermetic Arts, notwithstanding any limitations that may be placed on their exercise of that power.)
Anyone who participated in the casting ritual, and was acknowledged by the casting magi (even if they were in disguise).
Any enchanted item specified as part of the casting ritual (whether named, or uniquely described, or directly indicated) by at least one of the participating magi.
Any enchanted item created by one of the participating magi. Even if they sold it and it is now owned by an enemy covenant. (But just inviting a magus in does not grandfather in all their creations.)
Anyone invited into the Aegis and given a token by a magus who participated in the casting ritual. This invitation may be revoked at any time by any magus who participated in the casting ritual. The invitation may be revoked by a magus other than the one who issued it, and the token need not be reclaimed, but the revoking magus must know that the invitation was issued, and be able to identify the invited creature.
2 Likes
I like the implication for winter covenants. If you don;t know that a device is there, it is non active. Makes it easier to have "hidden resources" in play.
Bob
2 Likes
Just a quibble, to quickly resolve before the important part of the proposal can be treated: the Heartbeast Ability has a Penetration and hence differs from the Skinchanger Virtue - though Heartbeast is unlikely to penetrate an Aegis.
I appreciate the inclusion of effects without a possibility to penetrate in the text. I will need time to evaluate it.
Barring magi with Longevity Rituals or Familiars from foreign Aegises means that you can no longer welcome visiting magi into your covenant physically while still limiting their ability to act magically against you while they're visiting, nor can you meet under a hostile-to-both-of-you aegis as neutral ground where rivals might negotiate an end to their feud, or...Anyway, this feels like it would have significant knock-on social effects that I'm not awake enough to speculate on intelligently.
Also, the second interval (between stories II and III) of The Traitor's Game (Thrice-Told Tales, chapter 6; specifically, page 127, heading "The Dark Passenger") relies on a possessing spirit that is neither native nor invited to the Aegis, remaining active and aware while cut off from most/all of its magical abilities until its possessee gets his hands on a casting token/invitation later on. This scenario can no longer exist.
1 Like
I like this, although I find that barring entrance to magi with longevity rituals/familiar bonds seems too much, maybe supressing the two while they are within the aura would be less drastic. This would mean that an old mage could not risk spending too long, and definitely not winter, in an unfriendly aura.
On the other hand, this makes magi who have not reached their 35th (or 50th for a few) birthday with no familiar a lot more important to the Order, as they become important Covenant emissaries.
One further quibble: can a demonic energumen (RoP:TI p.32f Possession) - while not using powers - still walk though an Aegis undetected?
In all other situations, the demon can "hide" within the host, and walk through such wards with impunity.
I appreciate, if the AotH will be no longer a ward. But we still should consider the effects on AotH, if RoP:TI as is addresses it.
The native part bit isn't written so well.
First there is the section on participation. The bigger paragraph doesn't technically limit participation to that list, just guarantees that list is part of who participates. The third part, "any character with opened Hermetic Arts who participates with the permission of one of those magi," is utterly pointless when we read the following paragraph. That's because the following paragraph, "Anyone who participated in the casting ritual, and was acknowledged by the casting magi (even if they were in disguise)" adds even more participants including that third group of magi from above.
Meanwhile, many people accidentally read conditional statements like this to imply their converse. Then it would look like only magi can participate and that the one-sentence paragraph is basically a throw-away line. Also, because of this common logical mistake, when making lists like this, saying "include" rather than "are" or something of the sort can be very problematic. When I look down this list, I wonder what other groups might also be considered native and haven't been listed.
.
Still part of this but very separate, why are all items made by magi and sold off considered native if they participate? Here is an example of the case I'm considering: a magus made an item elsewhere 50 years ago, has just recently joined this covenant, and is now participating in its AotH. The device would have ceased to be an Arcane Connection to the magus a long time ago (lasts only years, not decades). Most likely this device will have become a favorite tool of someone else and thus will be an Arcane Connection to that person instead. So why does AotH accept it? I can see reasons why, such as the user's sigil, but that being the distinguishing part would be problematic in many other cases.
As currently written, I would not play in a Saga with it unless there was significant HR to it. Here are just a few things I have a problem with.
-
The Aegis should be a strong defense, not a neigh impenetrable one. The defense of this version is so strong that it will actually reduce a great many story possibilities.
-
Expanding the "barring from entry" effect from just beings with Might to anything with a supernatural effect is a massive change that will cause all kinds of complications and knock-on effects. It will greatly increase the difficulty for visiting Redcaps for example (who all carry enchanted devices and often have LR). Your Covenant having an Aegis is a legitimate argument for a Redcap to not visit you. Even peasants might have an item of Virtue, which would bar them from entering in whole or part.
-
Isn't the Parma Magica an existing supernatural effect? It is gained from a fully integrated Supernatural Ability. Even ignoring the things I will cover in the next point, this pretty much means no Magus would willing enter an Aegis in which they are not native.
-
Specifically barring Magi if they have LR or Cords is even more of an issue. While they can leave items behind and allow effects to expire, things like the LR and Cords are inherently part of them which cannot be easily dispelled. Pretty much all Tribunal meetings will have to take place in locations which are not covered by the Aegis. Most Magi will also never want to visit another Covenant due to the potential dangers. Uninviting a Magi within your Aegis now has a high possibility of being a violation of the Code as a hostile action. In general this will also kill the economy of any Covenant who makes income from visiting Magi and Redcaps. That includes Durenmar, who would might have to relocated their library outside of the Aegis to fulfill their House requirement to share with the Order since the Aegis is actively hostile and dangerous to non-native Magi. There is little chance that it would not be voted as unacceptable since it is actively dangerous especially to older Magi.
-
While Bjornaer are one of my least favorite Houses, their Heartbeast is not a standard magical effect but part of their true nature. Because of both being their true nature they have their own special rules for returning to one of them or changing to one of them even under effects which would normally suppress magic. I do not like the Aegis just over-ruling this, especially since their special rules already mention how it interacts with the Aegis.
-
Any Covenant within a Regio will be extremely difficult to visit, even more than they currently are. This includes many published Covenants. They would be required to build "greeting stations" outside both the Regio and their Aegis. Depending on their location this might be extremely difficult or impossible.
-
The section for determining "Natives" is overly complex and sure to cause confusion.
-
Revoking invitation might need a review. It took a few readings since at first it seemed that the invitation required a Magus other than the one who issued it to be the revoker.
So this change will cause a mandatory massive restructuring of the Order and how they operate. Magi will rarely if ever visit other Covenants, Tribunals (and other meetings) will have to take place outside of an Aegis, Redcaps will have increased difficulty (and might justifiably refuse) visiting Covenants. House Bonisagus will have to figure another way to share their discoveries with the Order that is not locked behind a very deadly trap.
So much of the way the Order is designed, published story seeds/adventures, and other material would have to be tossed out that this version is a bad idea.
And after this, I would have to ask you: What myths are you reading?
Because having clean, simple rules with no exceptions is about as Unmythic as it gets to me.
Indeed there are collections of myths that are explicitly about exactly that: abusing the loopshole! The small clever guy getting the better of the bigger, stronger more robust fellow by noticing exactly how that gives him a way to win.
If you want clean, simple, easy design, there are plenty on the market. The more we approach that 'ideal', we'll approach a board game. One of the reasons I like Ars Magica so much, warts and all, is that it dares to have a few exceptions and oddities. Style over substance and all that. While still staying more consistent than the majority of games out there.
1 Like